2/19/2014
1
The Ethical, Effective The Ethical, Effective The Ethical, Effective The Ethical, Effective
Assistance of Counsel and Assistance of Counsel and Assistance of Counsel and Assistance of Counsel and
Jencks Act Consequences ofJencks Act Consequences ofJencks Act Consequences ofJencks Act Consequences of
Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland and and and and
its Progenyits Progenyits Progenyits ProgenyDavid P. Baugh, Esq.
2025 E. Main Street, Suite 114
Richmond, Virginia 23223
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
What is Brady Information?
� Exculpatory Information
� Impeachment Evidence
� Evidence which mitigates the degree of
offense or punishment
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Exculpating Evidence
� Evidence which suggests that someone
else committed the offense
2/19/2014
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Impeaching Evidence
� Any evidence that would bring into
question the credibility of any government
witness, inconsistent witness statements or prior inconsistent statements by a witness
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Mitigating Evidence
� Information which reduces the grade of
offense or punishment - say from murder to
manslaughter, or a lesser weight of drug cases
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Ethical Considerations
� Time of Tender – “for use at trial”
� Timeliness should be in order to use during preparation
� Virginia LEO 1862
2/19/2014
3
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
ABA Rules of Professional Conduct
� Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of
a ProsecutorThe prosecutor in a criminal case shall: . . .
(d) make timely disclosure to the defenses of all evidence or
information known that tends to negate the guilt . . . Mitigate the offense . . . or except when . . . relieved of this
responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
The Brady Motion
� All Brady information know to the government
Pointless and no constitutional or record protection except to the most basic and obvious Brady information, such as a confession from someone
else or a statement from a witness that someone else committed the offense
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
� A general Brady request is totally worthless for
appeal or habeas. U..S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)
� A specific Brady request – the prosecution is
“seldom, if ever” excused from complying,
irrespective of good or bad faith on the partof the prosecution. U.S. v. Agurs, supra.
- Note this standard triggers the prosecution’s proving beyond a reasonable doubt that denial of tender did not affect the verdict.
2/19/2014
4
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
� Timeliness
� If something pops in a Brady tender whichchanges your defense hypo or which gives
rise to anew defense hypo, move for
continuance and object, object, object.
Making the Brady Record
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
� You cannot provide effective assistance of counsel
without tender of all Brady during trial preparation and
before plea negotiation
� Guilty plea must conform with effective assistance of
counsel standards. Missouri v. Frye, 132 U.S. 1399 (2012)
� Guilty plea waiver of rights must be intelligently,
knowing, and deliberately made. U.S. v. Zerbst
Reality
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
ABA Guideline 6.3 –Decision to Enter a Plea of Guilty
(a) Counsel shall make it clear to the client that the client must
make the ultimate decision whether to plead guilty. Counsel
should investigate and explain to the client the prospective
strengths and weaknesses of the case for the prosecution and defense, . . . Counsel should not base a recommendation of a
plea of guilty solely upon the client’s knowledge of guilt or
solely upon a favorable disposition offer.
2/19/2014
5
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Motion for Court Monitored Brady Tender Should:
� Require the prosecution to admit or deny, either inwriting or on the record, the existence of eachspecific and enumerated item of Brady requested
information sought by the defense.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Motion for Court Monitored Brady Tender Should:
� Require the prosecution to admit or deny, eitherin writing or on the record, the specific steps taken to comply with Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419
(1995) to determine the existence of specificrequested Brady information from the files andwritings of law enforcement.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Motion for Court Monitored Brady Tender Should:
� Strongly encourage the prosecution to disclose,or submit for in camera review, under penalty ofsanction including dismissal, all evidence
arguably within the rule in Brady.
2/19/2014
6
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Motion for Court Monitored Brady Tender Should: � Require the prosecution to submit in camera,
ex parte review, on the sealed record, any requested specific exculpating, mitigating or
impeaching information it wishes to withhold because the prosecution believes the information is not “material” to the outcomeunder Brady or the disclosure would cause a
public or witness security concern.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Motion for Court Monitored Brady Tender Should:
� The Court will issue written orders and findings offact and conclusions of law regarding each specific Brady request made by the defense.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Getting a LEO from your State Bar
2/19/2014
7
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Jencks Act
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Conclusion
Questions?
THE ETHICAL, EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND JENCKS ACT CONSEQUENCES OF BRADY V.
MARYLAND AND ITS PROGENY
VIRGINIA TRIAL LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION The Homestead March 28, 2014
David P. Baugh, Esq.
[email protected] Richmond, Virginia
Violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the denial
of due process protections have become one of the largest reasons for
successful habeas challenges to criminal convictions. Mistaken and, in many
instances, deliberate suppression of evidence which tends to negate the guilt
of the defendant, mitigate his or her punishment or which could impeach a
government witness has become an all too frequent blemish on criminal
prosecution in this nation.
A cursory internet investigation bears out the extent of the problem
and the due process impact of this issue. It is further complicated by several
notable cases wherein systemic toleration for the suppression of evidence
favorable to the defendant has grabbed the headlines of the nation's leading
2
newspapers and lead to sweeping court orders in federal and state cases. A
quick Google search for cases involving Brady violations and suppressed
exculpating evidence.
The relatively recent civil opinion in Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S.
2011 (2011) has eliminated virtually any deterrent effect of detection of
prosecutor misconduct by granting an absolute immunity from § 1983
liability for prosecutors engaging in deliberate and long term systematic
pattern of suppression of Brady information.
to hundreds of pages of law review cites from around that nation from over
the years.1
Compounding the difficulty with implementation of the Brady
protections is the sometimes innocent failure of prosecutors to recognize
favorable evidence to the defense.
Another, and perhaps the greatest impediment to full benefit of the
due process opinion in Brady is the ignorance of judges, prosecutors and, all
too many defense attorneys as to what Brady material is the “good faith”
opinion of the prosecutor that the information is not exculpating, impeaching
or mitigating.
1 Examples Geo. J. Ethics, 1993; Wisconsin Law Review, 2006; Duke Law journal, 1969, Wash. University Law Quarterly, 1999; Fordham L. Rev. 1984; Fordham L. Rev.; 2000; McGeorge Law Review, 2002; Colum. L. Rev. 1989; Rutgers L. Rev. 1990; The Yale Law Journal, 2006 reveal the duration and legal depth of the issue.
3
WHAT IS BRADY INFORMATION? -
Brady information is not merely “exculpating” evidence: exculpating
evidence being evidence which goes to prove your client’s innocence. Brady
material, for which the government has a constitutional obligation to tender
to the defendant, includes:
■ Exculpating evidence,
■ Impeachment Evidence, and
■ Evidence which could mitigate the defendant’s punishment.
It is important to remember all three types of evidence: exculpating,
impeaching and mitigating and understanding the examples and differences
of each.
Exculpating evidence is relatively easy evidence to understand and
recognize: a confession from someone else, or a witness who says someone
else committed or is likely to have committed the offense.
Impeachment evidence is usually thought of as evidence of some
government witness having a reason for lying. It the witness is getting a deal
in return for his or her testimony, that is impeachment evidence or Giglio
evidence. But also, and it should be recognized and described in your
motion, impeachment evidence would be if a witness has given differing
statements. If one statement, Statement A, says one thing and another,
4
Statement B, says something else, each of those is impeaching. Statement A
can be used to impeach the witness on Statement B and Statement B can be
used to impeach on Statement A. If there are different witnesses and one
witness says the robber had on a blue shirt and another says the witness had
one a red shirt, that is impeachment. Both are impeachment as each can be
used to impeach the other.
Mitigation evidence is also an aspect of Brady often overlooked. If
one witness says the defendant was selling 100 grams a week and another
says he was selling 50 grams a week, that is mitigating. The statements
lessen the total weight and that lessens the punishment.
Likewise, for example in a premeditated murder case, one witness
says your client was arguing with the victim before they were shot, or that
they had a “beef” and that was a part of the killing, the presence of “hot
blood” negates premeditation. It lessens the murder one to a murder two or
three.
Some Brady materials can be readily identified: the confession of
another and the contradicting witness are but two examples. However many
Brady requirements are determined by the defense hypothesis, of which the
prosecution might not be aware.
5
By example a victim's propensity for violent outbursts might not be
classified as Brady in a routine premeditated murder case. Such would likely
be inadmissible under the federal rules of evidence. However, if the
defendant is formulating a self-defense case, such evidence would be
admissible in a murder case.
In a non-capital case a denial of Brady tender can result in reversal
only if the suppressed evidence could have lead to a different verdict.
ETHICICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING BRADY –
Most courts let the prosecutor provide Brady material in time to be
used from cross examination of a witness. That is the law. There is much
and very recent case law indicating that giving the Brady material up during
trial will suffice to comply with Brady obligations. The opinions in support
of this last minute tender are replete with references to the assertions that
“there is not constitutional right to discovery.” Never noticed by the courts is
that Brady is not discovery. Brady tender is a constitutional due process
issue.
Case law has abdicated the entire constitutional question to the
prosecution. What is Brady and when must it be tendered is subject to the
prosecutor’s understanding of the law, without supervision, and his or her
whim. On appeal the Brady violation is only subject to reversal only if the
6
omitted evidence would have changed the outcome. This assessment is made
against a record and defense crafted without benefit of knowledge of the
omitted evidence.
Secondly, in most instances the attorneys object to the late tender, but
that is the end.
From this moment on, as we try to drag the courts into compliance
with the constitution, as soon as the last minute tender is made of some
impeachment information, immediately move for continuance to research
and investigate the tender. See if there is something that should be followed
up on, outside of court. If denied, OBJECT, OBJECT OBJECT.
However, the ABA ethical guidelines, adopted by most state bars have
changed that. The new guidelines do not change the law, but they do set an
ethical Brady tender obligation earlier than cross examination. In the ABA
Model Guidelines tender is required when the prosecutor finds the Brady or
identifies, in response to a Brady request, the Brady material. If not tendered
immediately the prosecutor is to seek a protective order.
ABA Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Advocate Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
7
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
Emphasis added.
You should check your state ethical rules. This ABA model rule has
been accepted and, now, including, in the ethical guidelines of most states.
Again, although not law, it is an argument you can use and you should be
familiar.
The word "timely" should be better defined. Some states have ruled
that the tender of the information if made before trial or during the trial at a
time prior to the defendant's resting is sufficient.
Disclosure after investigation, formulation and commitment to a
defense theory before the jury in opening statement is not timely and denies
the defendant effective assistance of counsel. The defendant enjoys, among
his rights to effective assistance of counsel the right to have the attorney
fully and properly investigate all leads. Additionally, the defendant has the
right to have his or her attorney to apply his or her legal expertise in
8
developing, far in advance of trial, a defensive theory. Such a theory could
not be formulated if the true extent of the government's allegations and
evidence is not known. Tender during trial might require the defense to
negate its opening statement and the theory of the case, the defense theory at
that time being inconsistent with a defense theory predicated with ignorance
of the suppressed evidence.
Virginia's bar counsel changed its definition of timely by issuing a
new Legal Ethics Opinion. The Commonwealth of Virginia State Bar Office
of Bar Counsel recently issued Legal Ethics Opinion 1862 in March of 2012
which defined "timely disclosure" as mandating the disclosure duty as soon
as the prosecutor is aware of the existence of the information, unless relieved
of the obligation by protective order. This definition recognizes and foresees
the need for the tender of the Brady information at a time which enables the
defense to investigate, evaluate and use the exculpating information.
It should be argued in a real and complete Brady motion that the
language of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, again, adopted
by every state I am aware of and have checked, implicitly conveys to the
court leave to compel ex parte submission of information, for whatever
reason, the prosecution wishes to conceal. The seeking of a protective order
9
by the government would necessitate in camera review of the item for which
nondisclosure is sought.
In every case you have, if you are serious about the case, you should
file a motion for court monitored Brady tender.
I would also encourage all true criminal defense advocates to file for
legal ethics opinions in your state for a similar ethical definition of the word
“timely” regarding the duty to tender Brady materials.
Of note is that the Assistant Attorney General issued a memo to all
United States Attorneys setting forth the policy of the Department of Justice
in relation to discovery and Brady. Google will take you to the memo and a
portion of it is attached to this paper. In short, the Assistant Attorney
General Ogden states that Brady materials should be tendered “when
discovered.”
No court would allow a government memo to be viewed as binding on
the Department of Justice or to give rise to a defendant’s right. Do each of
you remember the Petit Policy? However, the Ogden policy could be used in
support of a Court Monitored Brady Tender Motion. You should also inform
the court that you would be ineffective to advise a client to take a plea or
even enter into plea negotiations until all discovery and Brady material has
10
been tendered. That is as per the ABA Capital Counsel guidelines and the
policy of many public defender offices.
THE ACTUAL BRADY MOTION –
Most attorneys file a discovery motion, under Rule 16 in federal court
or your local court rules, and add a sentence asking for “all Brady
information known to the government.” Such a motion is pointless. It has no
constitutional and record protection implications except for the most basic
information, such as the confession of someone else.
No, a proper Brady motion must specifically set out what is being
sought. The question arises, naturally, how can someone seek specifically
that of which he or she is unaware?
MAKING YOUR BRADY RECORD –
Start with this reality. A general, plain vanilla, “give me my Brady
material motion” is worthless for preserving the client’s rights. And when a
judge starts are setting the case with a blanket order for Rule 16 and Brady
tender, the judge is an idiot. How can someone order Brady without even
knowing or even having an inkling of your defensive theory. It is that
defensive theory which determines what is exculpating, mitigating or
impeaching.
11
Simply stated, a trial advocate need only remember a few basic rules
to preserve the appellate record.
1. A general or non-specific Brady request (“Defendant moves for
tender of all Brady materials.”) is totally worthless and of no
greater value for appellate or habeas purposes than no Brady
motion. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 ((1976).
2. When a defendant makes a specific and express request for
identified Brady material within the possession of the government,
the prosecution “is seldom, if ever” excused from complying with
the request, irrespective of good or bad faith on the part of the
prosecution. The conviction must be reversed if the suppressed
evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial. See Agurs,
supra. ((This standard for review has been stated as warranting
reversal unless the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, the suppressed evidence did not affect the outcome of the
case.
3. When Brady information is not tendered until shortly before trial
or during trial, to preserve the record counsel must immediately
move for continuance to investigate and develop the information.
Failure to comply and preserve the “lateness” of tender, forever
12
waives any defect. The objection should be couched in terms of
due process and effective assistance of counsel. How can counsel
defend or prepare a defense unmindful of evidence in possession of
the government which weakens the government’s case.
BRADY AND PLEA NEGOTIATION AND PLEAS -
In 2012 the United States Supreme Court came down with its opinion
in Missouri v. Frye, 132 U.S. 1399 (2012). Without getting into a lengthy
discussion about the facts of the case, the gist of the opinion is that the
United States Supreme Court extended the right to effective assistance of
counsel to pleas and plea bargaining. Previously any effective assistance of
counsel concerns for a client would be resolved with a plea of guilty.
The court noted that so many criminal cases are resolved with guilty
pleas, denial of effective assistance of counsel should be a basis for habeas
relieve in a plea.
The implications of this opinion are pertinent to any discussion
concerning Brady v. Maryland, when one considers the ABA guidelines for
indigent defense. Guideline Standard 6.3 Decision to Enter a Plea of Guilty,
states:
(a) Counsel shall make it clear to the client that the client must make the ultimate decision whether to plead guilty. Counsel should investigate and explain to the client the prospective strengths and weakness of the case for the prosecution and defense, including the
13
availability of prosecution witness (if known), relevant concessions and benefits subject to negotiation, and possible consequences of a conviction after trial. Counsel should not base a recommendation of a pleas of guilty solely on the client’s acknowledgement of guilt or solely on a favorable disposition offer.
This standard would seem to impart a logical requirement that
effective assistance of counsel has been denied when an attorney engages in
plea negotiations with the prosecution and plea discussions with the client
until the case has been completely investigated, factually and legally, and the
strengths and weaknesses of the government’s case determined.
How can a client be given complete disclosure of the strengths and
weaknesses of the government’s case without disclosure of Brady material?
Brady information, by its very nature, is potential weakness in the
government’s case and could be the basis for a finding of innocence,
impeachment of a government witness and/or mitigation of the sentence?
Since the opinion in Missouri v. Frye, defense counsel cannot rely
upon at-trial tender of Brady material. Such material must be or should be
tendered before a plea of guilty can be discussed intelligently and effectively
with a client.
CONCLUSION –
As members of the criminal defense bar, charged with the protecting
of the constitution, we must unerringly push the envelope and increase the
14
protections. We must not all into settling for what is usual. Be creative. Be
forceful and assert every constitutional right.
15
SAMPLE COURT MONITORED BRADY MOTION
This is a sample motion, applicable in every kind of criminal case to prevent, rather than try to unring the bell, Brady violations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT of WHEREVER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Criminal No XXXXXXX ) v. ) ) XXXXXXXXXX ) ) Defendant. )
MOTION FOR COURT MONITORED BRADY DISCLOSURE
MOTION SUMMARY
The United States Department of Justice has an abysmal history,
including current events, of prosecutorial misconduct, particularly in
compliance with the constitutional due process requirements of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The issue has been exacerbated by the recent
opinion in Connick v. Thompson, 131 U.S. 1350 (2011) creating absolute
immunity of prosecutors for wrongful convictions resulting from
16
suppression of defense favorable evidence. Defendant proposes that the
following process be implemented to permit the prosecution to comply with
the Rules of Professional Conduct and to seek, when necessary, protective
orders, when specific Brady requests are made and the prosecution questions
that appropriateness of tender or questions the classification of a given item
of evidence or information as Brady material, subject to immediate tender.
PRAYER SUMMARY
To limit the likelihood of intentional or negligent denial of the
defendant's due process rights, the defendant seeks implementation of the
following:
1. Requiring the prosecution to admit or deny, either in writing or
on the record, the existence of each specific and enumerated item of Brady
requested information sought by the defense.
2. Requiring the prosecution to state, either in writing or on the
record, the specific steps it has taken to comply with Kyles v. Whitley, 514
U.S. 419 (1995), obligations to determine the existence of specific Brady
request information in the files and writings of law enforcement.
3. The court strongly encouraging the prosecution to disclose, or
at least to submit for in camera review, under penalty of sanction including
17
dismissal, all evidence that is arguably within the rule in Brady and/or in
compliance with a specific and enumerated Brady request of the defense.
4. Requiring the prosecution to submit for in camera review, on
the record, such record to be sealed among the record of this case, any
exculpating, mitigating or impeachment information it wishes to withhold
because the prosecution believes the information is not "material" to the
outcome under Brady or information the disclosure of which would cause a
public or witness security concern.
5. The court issuing written orders and findings of fact and
conclusions of law regarding each specific Brady request made by the
defense.
MOTION
COMES NOW, XXXXXXXXX, defendant herein, by and through
counsel and moves for the implementation and the issuance of an order
detailing a specific procedure for court monitored constitutional due process
Brady tender supervision to insure that the prosecution can recognize
material which is subject to tender pursuant to Brady.
Brady and the ANY STATE Supreme Court ethics obligation require
the prosecution to timely tender any information known to the prosecution
18
and law enforcement agencies involved in the investigation of the case all
information which:
1. could negate the defendant's guilt, or
2. which could lessen the degree of the offense, or
3. which could be used to impeach any government witness.
In support of the motion the defendant would allege and prove the
following:
1. the negligent and intentional non-compliance for the
timely disclosure of Brady material is a significant cause for substantiated
allegations of mistrials, wrongful convictions and actual innocence
convictions, in capital and non-capital cases, in the various courts of this
country, including the those of the United States.
2. there have been a significant series of documented violations of
the requirements for due process Brady tenders of evidence.
3. the Office of Professional Responsibility, the ethics compliance
arm of the United States District of Justice, has a long and documented
record of not imposing sanctions upon prosecutors found to have violated
defendants' due process rights through suppression of evidence favorable to
the accused.
19
4. That the decision in Connick v. Thompson, 131 U.S. 1350
(2011), conveying absolute immunity from civil liability to prosecutors for
constitutional due process violations, removes one available sanction by
defendants for intentional violation of constitutional due process rights.
5. the existing standard of appellate review in criminal cases
grants reversals for convictions resulting from Brady violations only in those
instances wherein the suppressed evidence is would necessitate a different
verdict. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, (1985) at 662 ("[Brady]
evidence is only material 'if there is a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.'"); Bell v. Bell, 512 F.3d 233 (6th Cir., 2008. (" ... [N]ot every
violation of that duty [to disclose exculpating evidence] necessarily
establishes that the outcome was unjust. ... there is never a real 'Brady
violation' unless the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable
probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different
verdict."); Hutchinson v. Bell, 303 F.3d 720 (Fed. 6th Cir., 2002)("The
district court also noted that petitioner could not show a reasonable
probability of a different result if the [suppressed Brady] materials in the
second group of [suppressed Brady materials] had been timely disclosed.").
20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant prays that the court
impose the above procedures under the heightened standards for protection
of constitutional and statutory rights to insure the defendant's protection in a
capital trial.
Respectfully submitted,
XXXXXXXXX
By: __________________________ Of Counsel
21
This is the Legal Ethics Opinion of the Virginia State Bar concerning the timeliness of Brady tender. It is offered to encourage other criminal trial lawyers to solicit from your ethics body, similar opinions and standards and provide substance to a critical legal and constitutional standard: due process, what the courts have not provided.
DRAFT OPINION OF VIRGINIA LEO 1862
(This opinion is a DRAFT Opinion and is subject to revision or withdrawal until it is finalized by the Ethics Committee – March 15, 2012) LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1862 WHAT CONSTITUTES “TIMELY DISCLOSURE” 1 OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BY A 2 PROSECUTOR? 3 4 In this hypothetical, in a pending criminal prosecution, the prosecutor is aware of 5 exculpatory evidence, in the form of witness statements accusing another individual of the 6 offense with which the defendant is charged. The prosecutor is also aware that the primary 7 inculpatory witness, an eyewitness to the offense, has died and therefore will not be available to 8 testify in future proceedings in the case. There is an upcoming preliminary hearing scheduled in 9 the case, although the prosecutor has offered a plea bargain in which the defendant would plead 10 guilty to a lesser offense and waive the preliminary hearing. The prosecutor has not disclosed 11 either the exculpatory evidence or the death of the primary witness. 12 13 QUESTION PRESENTED 14 15 1. Is the “timely disclosure” of exculpatory evidence, as required by Rule 3.8(d), broader 16 than the disclosure mandated by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and other case 17 law interpreting the Due Process clause of the Constitution? If so, what constitutes 18 “timely disclosure” for the purpose of Rule 3.8(d)? 19 20 2. During plea negotiations, does Rule 3.8(d) require a prosecutor to reveal information that 21 weakens the prosecution’s case against the defendant? 22 23 APPLICABLE RULES AND OPINIONS 24 25 The applicable Rule of Professional Conduct is Rule 3.8(d)1. 26 1 Rule 3.8 Additional Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
A lawyer engaged in a prosecutorial function shall: *** (d) make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant, or to the defendant if he has no counsel, of the existence of evidence which the prosecutor knows tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment, except when disclosure is precluded or modified by order of a court; 2 See Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 1783 n. 15 (2009) (“Although the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by Brady, only mandates the disclosure of material evidence, the obligation to
22
disclose evidence favorable to the defense may arise more broadly under a prosecutor’s ethical or statutory obligations.”), citing Rule 3.8(d); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436 (1995) (noting that Brady “requires less of the prosecution than” Rule 3.8(d)). 27 ANALYSIS 28 29 Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and subsequent cases, a prosecutor has the legal 30 obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence to a defendant in time for the defendant to 31 make use of it at trial. A number of cases interpreting this legal obligation have noted that the 32 prosecutor’s ethical duty to disclose exculpatory evidence is broader than the legal duty arising 33 from the Due Process clause, although they have not explored the contours of that ethical duty.2 34 35 LEO 1862 Page 2 Rule 3.8(d) does not refer to or incorporate, in the language of the Rule or its comments, 36 the Brady standard for disclosure. The standard established by the Rule is also significantly 37 different from the Brady standard in at least two ways: first, the Rule is not limited to “material” 38 evidence, but rather applies to all evidence which has some exculpatory effect on the defendant’s 39 guilt or sentence; second, the Rule only requires disclosure when the prosecutor has actual 40 knowledge of the evidence and its exculpatory nature3, while Brady imputes knowledge of other 41 state actors, such as the police, to the prosecutor. These differences from the Brady standard 42 raise the further question of whether Rule 3.8(d) requires earlier disclosure than the Brady 43 standard, which requires only that the evidence be disclosed in time for the defendant to make 44 effective use of it. Thus, the prosecutor has complied with the legal disclosure requirement if the 45 evidence is disclosed in the midst of trial so long as the defendant has an opportunity to put on 46 the relevant evidence.4 47 3 As Comment [4] to Rule 3.8 explains, “[p]aragraphs (d) and (e) address knowing violations of the respective provisions so as to allow for better understanding and easier enforcement by excluding situations where the lawyer/prosecutor does not have knowledge or control over the ultra vires actions of law enforcement personnel who may be only minimally involved in a case.”
23
4 See e.g., Read v. Virginia State Bar, 233 Va. 560, 357 S.E.2d 544 (1987). 48 Although the Committee has never definitively addressed the question, it opines today 49 that the duty of timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence requires earlier disclosure than the 50 Brady standard, which is necessarily retrospective, requires. This conclusion is largely based on 51 the response to Read v. Virginia State Bar, in which the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the 52 Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s order revoking a prosecutor’s license, finding that the 53 prosecutor had complied with his legal obligations under Brady and therefore had complied with 54 the correlative ethics rule in force at that time. The disciplinary rule in effect at that time was 55 DR 8-102 of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility which read, “The prosecutor in a 56 criminal case or a government lawyer shall . . . [d]isclose to a defendant all information required 57 by law.” 58 59 At the time of the conduct at issue, Beverly Read was a Commonwealth’s Attorney. 60 Read was conducting the prosecution of an arson case. During the investigation, the 61 Commonwealth discovered two witnesses, Sils and Dunbar, who both identified the defendant at 62 the scene of the crime. Sils had second thoughts after he identified the defendant in a line-up and 63 later became convinced that the defendant was not the person Sils had observed at the scene of 64 the crime. Sils disclosed to Read that the defendant was definitely not the man observed at the 65 scene of the crime. Read told Sils that he would not be called as a witness and that his presence 66 was no longer necessary. Read concluded his case and rested without disclosing that the two 67 witnesses had changed their statements. When Sils went home and had further discussions with 68 the other witness, Dunbar, both became convinced that the defendant was not the man they saw. 69 They returned to the courthouse during the trial the following day and agreed to testify for the 70 defense. Read then attempted to pass a message to defense counsel that would have disclosed 71 the exculpatory information but defense counsel refused to accept the writing. Unsuccessful in 72 passing this information to defense counsel, Read then read into the record that the two witnesses 73 had recanted and would testify that the defendant was not the man they saw at the scene of the 74 crime. After this exchange, defense counsel moved to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. 75 LEO 1862 Page 3
24
The motion to dismiss was denied. A complaint against Read was made with the Virginia State 76 Bar and a disciplinary proceeding ensued. 77 78 Read’s counsel argued that his client had complied with Brady because the information 79 was available to use during trial, and therefore had disclosed “all information required by law.” 80 In spite of the Board’s finding that Read had willfully intended to see the defendant tried without 81 the disclosure that the two witnesses had recanted, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed that 82 Read had complied with the disciplinary rule, reversed the Disciplinary Board’s decision, and 83 entered final judgment that Read had not engaged in any misconduct. Following this decision, 84 the Bar rewrote the relevant rule, replacing the Brady standard with the standard now found in 85 Rule 3.8(d). 86 87 In light of the conclusion that Rule 3.8(d) requires earlier disclosure than the Brady 88 standard, the Committee next turns to the meaning of “timely disclosure.” In general, “timely” is 89 defined as “occurring at a suitable or opportune time” or “coming early or at the right time.” 90 Thus, a timely disclosure is one that is made as soon as practicable considering all the facts and 91 circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the duty to make a timely disclosure is violated 92 when a prosecutor intentionally delays making the disclosure or withholds disclosure in order to 93 gain a strategic advantage in the case. 94 95 The text of the Rule makes clear that a court order is sufficient to delay or excuse 96 disclosure of information that would otherwise have to be turned over to the defendant. Thus, 97 where the disclosure of particular facts at a particular time may jeopardize the investigation or a 98 witness, the prosecutor should immediately seek a protective order or other guidance from the 99 court in order to avoid those potential risks. As specified by the Rule, however, disclosure must 100 be “precluded or modified by order of a court” (emphasis added) in order for the prosecutor to 101 be excused from disclosure. 102 103 Because this is not a bright-line rule, the Committee cannot give a definitive answer to 104 the question of whether the prosecutor must immediately turn over the exculpatory evidence at 105 issue in the hypothetical; however, the prosecutor may not withhold the evidence merely because 106 his legal obligations pursuant to Brady have not yet been triggered. 107 108 The answer to the second question is apparent from the text of the Rule. The Rule 109 requires disclosure of “the existence of evidence” which the prosecutor knows is exculpatory. 110 Although the death or other unavailability of the prosecutor’s primary witness likely does make 111 it less likely that the defendant will be convicted at trial, it is clearly not “evidence” and thus its 112 disclosure is not required by Rule 3.8(d). 113 114 This opinion is advisory only based upon the facts as presented, and not binding on any 115 court or tribunal. 116 117 118
25
THE OGDEN MEMO - US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
This is an excerpt of a memorandum sent to all United States Attorneys regarding discovery and, through it, the timeliness of Brady tender. Though not the law, it is a valuable aid and support for argument. David Ruhnke is to be thanked for bringing it to the attention of the defense bar.
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPARTMENT PROSECUTORS
Monday, January 4, 2010
FROM: David W. Ogden Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery
…
B. Timing: Exculpatory information, regardless of whether the information is
memorialized, must be disclosed to the defendant reasonably promptly after
discovery. Impeachment information, which depends on the prosecutor’s decision
on who is or may be called as a government witness, will typically be disclosed at a
reasonable time before trial to allow the trial to proceed efficiently. See USAM §9-
5.001. Section 9-5.001 also notes, however, that witness security, national security, or other
issues may require that disclosures of impeachment information be made at a time and in a
manner consistent with the policy embodied in the Jencks Act. Prosecutors should be attentive to
controlling law in their circuit and district governing disclosure obligations at various stages of
litigation, such as pre-trial hearings, guilty pleas, and sentencing.
Prosecutors should consult the local discovery rules for the district in which a case has been
indicted. Many districts have broad, automatic discovery rules that require Rule 16 materials to be
produced without a request by the defendant and within a specified time frame, unless a court
order has been entered delaying discovery, as is common in complex cases. Prosecutors must
comply with these local rules, applicable case law, and any final court order regarding discovery.
In the absence of guidance from such local rules or court orders, prosecutors should consider
making Rule 16 materials available as soon as is reasonably practical but must make disclosure no
later than a reasonable time before trial. In deciding when and in what format to provide
discovery, prosecutors should always consider security concerns and the other factors set forth in
26
subparagraph (A) above. Prosecutors should also ensure that they disclose Fed.R.Crim.P.
16(a)(1)(E) materials in a manner that triggers the reciprocal discovery obligations in
Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(b)(1).
Discovery obligations are continuing, and prosecutors should always be alert to developments
occurring up to and through trial of the case that may impact their discovery obligations and
require disclosure of information that was previously not disclosed.
Emphasis added.
(This opinion is a DRAFT Opinion and is subject to revision or withdrawal until it is
finalized by the Ethics Committee – March 15, 2012)
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 1862 WHAT CONSTITUTES “TIMELY DISCLOSURE” 1
OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BY A 2
PROSECUTOR? 3
4
In this hypothetical, in a pending criminal prosecution, the prosecutor is aware of 5
exculpatory evidence, in the form of witness statements accusing another individual of the 6
offense with which the defendant is charged. The prosecutor is also aware that the primary 7
inculpatory witness, an eyewitness to the offense, has died and therefore will not be available to 8
testify in future proceedings in the case. There is an upcoming preliminary hearing scheduled in 9
the case, although the prosecutor has offered a plea bargain in which the defendant would plead 10
guilty to a lesser offense and waive the preliminary hearing. The prosecutor has not disclosed 11
either the exculpatory evidence or the death of the primary witness. 12
13
QUESTION PRESENTED 14
15
1. Is the “timely disclosure” of exculpatory evidence, as required by Rule 3.8(d), broader 16
than the disclosure mandated by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and other case 17
law interpreting the Due Process clause of the Constitution? If so, what constitutes 18
“timely disclosure” for the purpose of Rule 3.8(d)? 19
20
2. During plea negotiations, does Rule 3.8(d) require a prosecutor to reveal information that 21
weakens the prosecution’s case against the defendant? 22
23
APPLICABLE RULES AND OPINIONS 24
25
The applicable Rule of Professional Conduct is Rule 3.8(d)1. 26
27
ANALYSIS 28
29
Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and subsequent cases, a prosecutor has the legal 30
obligation to disclose material exculpatory evidence to a defendant in time for the defendant to 31
make use of it at trial. A number of cases interpreting this legal obligation have noted that the 32
prosecutor’s ethical duty to disclose exculpatory evidence is broader than the legal duty arising 33
from the Due Process clause, although they have not explored the contours of that ethical duty.2 34
35
1 Rule 3.8 Additional Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
A lawyer engaged in a prosecutorial function shall:
***
(d) make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant, or to the defendant if he has no counsel, of the existence of
evidence which the prosecutor knows tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or
reduce the punishment, except when disclosure is precluded or modified by order of a court; 2 See Cone v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1769, 1783 n. 15 (2009) (“Although the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as interpreted by Brady, only mandates the disclosure of material evidence, the obligation to disclose
evidence favorable to the defense may arise more broadly under a prosecutor’s ethical or statutory obligations.”),
citing Rule 3.8(d); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436 (1995) (noting that Brady “requires less of the prosecution
than” Rule 3.8(d)).
LEO 1862
Page 2
Rule 3.8(d) does not refer to or incorporate, in the language of the Rule or its comments, 36
the Brady standard for disclosure. The standard established by the Rule is also significantly 37
different from the Brady standard in at least two ways: first, the Rule is not limited to “material” 38
evidence, but rather applies to all evidence which has some exculpatory effect on the defendant’s 39
guilt or sentence; second, the Rule only requires disclosure when the prosecutor has actual 40
knowledge of the evidence and its exculpatory nature3, while Brady imputes knowledge of other 41
state actors, such as the police, to the prosecutor. These differences from the Brady standard 42
raise the further question of whether Rule 3.8(d) requires earlier disclosure than the Brady 43
standard, which requires only that the evidence be disclosed in time for the defendant to make 44
effective use of it. Thus, the prosecutor has complied with the legal disclosure requirement if the 45
evidence is disclosed in the midst of trial so long as the defendant has an opportunity to put on 46
the relevant evidence.4 47
48
Although the Committee has never definitively addressed the question, it opines today 49
that the duty of timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence requires earlier disclosure than the 50
Brady standard, which is necessarily retrospective, requires. This conclusion is largely based on 51
the response to Read v. Virginia State Bar, in which the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the 52
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board’s order revoking a prosecutor’s license, finding that the 53
prosecutor had complied with his legal obligations under Brady and therefore had complied with 54
the correlative ethics rule in force at that time. The disciplinary rule in effect at that time was 55
DR 8-102 of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility which read, “The prosecutor in a 56
criminal case or a government lawyer shall . . . [d]isclose to a defendant all information required 57
by law.” 58
59
At the time of the conduct at issue, Beverly Read was a Commonwealth’s Attorney. 60
Read was conducting the prosecution of an arson case. During the investigation, the 61
Commonwealth discovered two witnesses, Sils and Dunbar, who both identified the defendant at 62
the scene of the crime. Sils had second thoughts after he identified the defendant in a line-up and 63
later became convinced that the defendant was not the person Sils had observed at the scene of 64
the crime. Sils disclosed to Read that the defendant was definitely not the man observed at the 65
scene of the crime. Read told Sils that he would not be called as a witness and that his presence 66
was no longer necessary. Read concluded his case and rested without disclosing that the two 67
witnesses had changed their statements. When Sils went home and had further discussions with 68
the other witness, Dunbar, both became convinced that the defendant was not the man they saw. 69
They returned to the courthouse during the trial the following day and agreed to testify for the 70
defense. Read then attempted to pass a message to defense counsel that would have disclosed 71
the exculpatory information but defense counsel refused to accept the writing. Unsuccessful in 72
passing this information to defense counsel, Read then read into the record that the two witnesses 73
had recanted and would testify that the defendant was not the man they saw at the scene of the 74
crime. After this exchange, defense counsel moved to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct. 75
3 As Comment [4] to Rule 3.8 explains, “[p]aragraphs (d) and (e) address knowing violations of the respective
provisions so as to allow for better understanding and easier enforcement by excluding situations where the
lawyer/prosecutor does not have knowledge or control over the ultra vires actions of law enforcement personnel
who may be only minimally involved in a case.”
4 See e.g., Read v. Virginia State Bar, 233 Va. 560, 357 S.E.2d 544 (1987).
LEO 1862
Page 3
The motion to dismiss was denied. A complaint against Read was made with the Virginia State 76
Bar and a disciplinary proceeding ensued. 77
78
Read’s counsel argued that his client had complied with Brady because the information 79
was available to use during trial, and therefore had disclosed “all information required by law.” 80
In spite of the Board’s finding that Read had willfully intended to see the defendant tried without 81
the disclosure that the two witnesses had recanted, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed that 82
Read had complied with the disciplinary rule, reversed the Disciplinary Board’s decision, and 83
entered final judgment that Read had not engaged in any misconduct. Following this decision, 84
the Bar rewrote the relevant rule, replacing the Brady standard with the standard now found in 85
Rule 3.8(d). 86
87
In light of the conclusion that Rule 3.8(d) requires earlier disclosure than the Brady 88
standard, the Committee next turns to the meaning of “timely disclosure.” In general, “timely” is 89
defined as “occurring at a suitable or opportune time” or “coming early or at the right time.” 90
Thus, a timely disclosure is one that is made as soon as practicable considering all the facts and 91
circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the duty to make a timely disclosure is violated 92
when a prosecutor intentionally delays making the disclosure or withholds disclosure in order to 93
gain a strategic advantage in the case. 94
95
The text of the Rule makes clear that a court order is sufficient to delay or excuse 96
disclosure of information that would otherwise have to be turned over to the defendant. Thus, 97
where the disclosure of particular facts at a particular time may jeopardize the investigation or a 98
witness, the prosecutor should immediately seek a protective order or other guidance from the 99
court in order to avoid those potential risks. As specified by the Rule, however, disclosure must 100
be “precluded or modified by order of a court” (emphasis added) in order for the prosecutor to 101
be excused from disclosure. 102
103
Because this is not a bright-line rule, the Committee cannot give a definitive answer to 104
the question of whether the prosecutor must immediately turn over the exculpatory evidence at 105
issue in the hypothetical; however, the prosecutor may not withhold the evidence merely because 106
his legal obligations pursuant to Brady have not yet been triggered. 107
108
The answer to the second question is apparent from the text of the Rule. The Rule 109
requires disclosure of “the existence of evidence” which the prosecutor knows is exculpatory. 110
Although the death or other unavailability of the prosecutor’s primary witness likely does make 111
it less likely that the defendant will be convicted at trial, it is clearly not “evidence” and thus its 112
disclosure is not required by Rule 3.8(d). 113
114
This opinion is advisory only based upon the facts as presented, and not binding on any 115
court or tribunal. 116
117
118